Talk:Bivalvia/Archive 1

Spine
The article currently reads:
 * Additionally, bivalves became mobile: some developed spines for buoyancy, while others suck in and eject water to enable propulsion.

The link being to spine (anatomy), which is actually a redirect to vertebral column, which is surely not what is intended! This needs to be changed, but to what I am not sure. --Iustinus 16:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too. I removed the link, since I don't know where it should point.  I am curious how spines increased bouyancy, and it would be nice if someone could explain.

Shells
It would be nice to have more information about bivalve shells, as a parallel to Gastropod shell -- both are linked as main articles from Animal shell. Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Systematics
I'll be revising this when I have some spare time. I'm doing research on bivalve phylogenetics and checked here just out of curiosity to see what classification scheme was used. I'm even unsure of what the most accepted phylogeny is, as of yet, but I know it is very different from Carter's 1965 system in terms of subclasses and orders. I believe it is broken into two superclasses (Protobranchia(Nuculoida,Solemyoida,Nuculanoida) and Autolamellibranchiata(Pteriomorphia and Heteroconchia(Palaeoheterdonta,Heterodonta))). I also added the line about Anomolodesmata being an order within Heterodonta. Esox id t 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gills
In the anatomy section there should be discussion of the gill morphology. Gibby is gibby (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
Somebody please fix the unscientific italicization of above-genus toxa througout the article and send the editor responsible a note please not to do this again. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Italicisation: fixed. Note: not sent. Some scientific standards explicitly call for this kind of formatting (they're in the minority, of course, but they count the ICBN among their number). --Stemonitis (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Paraphyletic taxa
Lets not get hung up on paraphyly, as in the last sentence in the section on Taxonomy. In ordinary classifications paraphyletic taxa, those that give rise to new taxa not included, is a perfectly good and reasonable concept outside of the more narrowly confined rules of cladistics. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 proposed taxonomy
I have added more recent references (2002 through 2011) and the 2010 Bieler, et al. proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia, which has been accepted by WoRMS.Shellnut (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
We had a vandalism attack yesterday by an unsigned user. Something rude about "tacos", "cheese" and a "grandma". This was thankfully found and removed by a BOT, however if it had not been caught we might not have seen it for a while as it was buried in the reference section. Is there a way to prevent people who are NOT registered Users from editing?Shellnut (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can go and ask at the protection requests but I don't expect them to protect the page on account of a single vandal attack. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They're caught easily enough. This isn't a high profile page to necessitate that. Esox  id t 22:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, it's just frustrating, and it has happened now twice in two weeks. Shellnut (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory information?
Just noticed that this page under "Muscles" states that scallops cannot extend their foot. The page on scallops states that some scallops can extend their foot. No idea which is correct, but not sure the present situation is right either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.173.211 (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have corrected this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference clutter in Bivalvia
I inclined to agree with the editor causing the remote discussion about "reference clutter" in Bivalvia. You're not going to increase the article's accuracy by increasing its truthiness to you, which is about all I can figure out for attaching this string of references. "Phylogenetic position of the bivalve family Cyrenoididae – removal from (and further dismantling of) the superfamily Lucinoidea" does not reliably source the sentence it is attached to. It seems that three of the other articles, although I don't have time to read them fully, do deal with this specific issue, including even specific assertions to this. So, I don't understand why family Cyrenoididae has such high level importance.

If the sentence is left in, I would appreciate an elaboration of the importance to higher level taxonomies of Bivalvia occupied by family Cyrenoididae.

However, I'm only a minor player in Bivalve taxonomies, so, I could be wrong. Either way, please quote and elaborate on how this particular article gives a more accurate phylogeny of the bivalves, and add that information to the article. Thanks. Eau (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with clam?
Shouldn't they be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Clams are bivalves, bivalves are not clams. Clam is a general term, and can apply to species in various orders in the class Bivalvia. Esox  id t 04:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me, then, an example of a bivalve that is not a clam? And tell me to which order it belongs?  And then can you tell me to which phylogenic group "the clams" belong?  Because as near as I have been able to figure it so far, it looks to me like all bivalves are clams...  And although I realize there would be much resistance to the proposal that the two be merged into one article, that doesn't mean it isn't correct. The "clam" article avoids any discussion of phylogeny, and I suspect it does so for this very reason. I await some examples.   KDS 4444  Talk  22:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

 * http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nmfs/figb0530.htm - Anatomy of oyster. --Snek01 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dead link. KDS 4444  Talk  22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Do bivalves change sex during the course of their life?


 * They are overwhelmingly gonochoristic but a few are hermaphroditic, but don't know which ones are. Esox id t 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you with certainty that the shipworms change sex as they age, starting off male and then becoming female. KDS 4444  Talk  22:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomic order endings with -ea vs. -a
It looks like according to the main table in this article that all of the orders of bivalves end with an -ea suffix. But according to WoRMS, all orders of bivalves end in just -a. Is this table outdated? Shouldn't it align correctly with WoRMS? Also, when you click on any of the blue-linked "orders", you are taken to a subfamily, not an order. Any way you slice it, this is confusing and contradictory and something seems like it should be done about it. No? Or do I have something wrong? KDS 4444 Talk  01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Neithea
Is anyone able to classify and link to Neithea? ~KvnG 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Potamomya. ~KvnG 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You say Bivalvia, I say Pelecypoda...
So, there are these two names for the Bivalve class of Molluscs (shown in the title). Now, I have a textbook (Advanced Biology by Michael Kent, page 494) which calls them by the latter (Pelecypoda) but says that they were for a long time know by the other [Bivalvia]. The wiki entry here say the opposite, that Bivalvia is the new term. Now, I'd normally go with the textbook but it was published in 2000 so it might be out of date and I can't find any internet resource to reconcile the two terms. Can someone provide a citation to the entry which does, please? The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, either Pelecypoda is an older term, or a term used by paeleontologists. I was doing work on Bivalve phylogenetics, and the paeleos seemed to use that term more often. In my line of work (marine ecology), I never hear anyone use that term. Esox  id t 22:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

According to my training in palaeontology in the 1980s, although "pelycypoda" would be a good name for this group, and it would nicely parallel the other classes of the Mollusca (Cephalopoda and Gastropoda), there was no dispute that Bivalvia was the earlier term in use. So, by the rules of nomenclature, Bivalvia is the term to use. No dispute about it - unless you've found something from the 16th century that uses "Pelycypoda" in this sense.

Aidan Karley (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120331014620/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/news/2009/04/27/shells-metals-water.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/27/shells-metals-water.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

True clams
Now that clam has been unceremoniously redirected here, there is no mention anywhere of the common definition of a "true" clam, as distinct from other bivalves. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How to define it in a way more succinct or grammatically correct than "a bivalve that isn't an oyster, scallop, shipworm, mussel, (insert specific subtaxon of bivalve here), etc."?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You could define oysters in a like way. What is your point? The old article said: "More specifically, true clams are bivalves having two shells of equal size connected by two adductor muscles and having a powerful burrowing foot. They are infaunal, spending most of their lives partially buried in the sand of the ocean floor. These characteristics distinguish the true clams from other bivalves, such as oysters, mussels, and scallops." The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives us this: "True clams, in the strict sense, are bivalves with equal shells closed by two adductor muscles situated at opposite ends of the shell, and with a powerful, muscular, burrowing foot. Clams characteristically lie buried from just beneath the surface to depths of about 0.6 metre (2 feet). They rarely travel over the bottom as do some other bivalves." The phrase "today often referred to as simply clams", currently in the article, was only added today. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, "true clams" are a monophyletic group?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can define any subgroup by exhaustively listing every other subgroup it is not. Which is what you did. Real sources, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, do not do it that way. The point is that "clam" is not only and always used as a mere synonym for bivalve, but this article never tells you that. Srnec (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I saw this discussion, I returned the first sentence in the article to a previous version. The definition of Bivalvia should be in scientific terms. The word "clam" is not used in Britain as a popular name for these molluscs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to change it back - either this article needs to deal with clams/bivalvia together, which I think is possible even with the BE difference in usage, or Clam needs to be reinstated. It is not going to be acceptable for Clam to redirect here without the lead describing the association; we might also need to discuss whether a merged article, if it persists, should be at Clam per WP:COMMON NAME.  Now you have seen that there is discussion over the part you removed what would you suggest? BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  10:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Clam into Bivalvia
was bold and formed a redirect from Clam to this article, which is a reasonable proposal but I think it is becoming clear from the subsequent discussion and changes to Bivalvia that it is a merger that would benefit from discussion. As such I have reinstated Clam and am proposing a merger here as per protocol.

This is a copy of KDS4444's reasoning posted on Talk:Clam:
 * I recently converted this into a redirect to Bivalvia. I suspect this may be undone soon, and would like to lay out some of my reasoning here.  The opening sentence of this article is "Clam is the general common name of any mollusks within the class Bivalvia."  If it is a common name for another class of animal, then why is it not included with the article on that animal and mentioned as a common name?  We don't have separate articles for Canis canis and "dog", we have "dog."  Beyond this, the content of the article duplicates (though only haphazardly) the content of Bivalvia— this means we have a second article that covers the same topic less well, which is unhelpful to readers.  Next, the article makes reference to and covers topics which are specific to particular languages (Italian, Japenese, etc.) which do not even have the word "clam" in their vocabularies and which organize their sense of molluscs differently from the way that we do in English.  And next, in the various articles on specific species of clam, the introductory sentence nearly always reads "...is a marine/ freshwater bivalve mollusc if the family XXXX-idae."  While I appreciate that the term "clam" is used by some English speakers to indicate particular classes of animals (according to one source, it refers specifically and only to Mya arenaria and no other species, distinguishing it from the quahogs and the scallops and presumably from the hard shell clams), having an article whose content includes no useful information distinguishing "clams" from any other bivalve group is disorienting and impractical and does not further the intentions of the Project.  From the talk page above it is evident that I am not the first editor to have questioned the utility of having a separate article on "clams"— I didn't intend to redirect this article until I read its content, and saw that it consisted of duplicate information unrelated to its use in English.  If we want to have an article called "Clam" then we need to fill that article with information that is not simply duplicated in another article, and if that cannot be done (which, according to the content of the article when I last saw it, could not) then it seems to me that the articles aught to point to the same namespace.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Clam as background for this merger discussion

Clearly Bivalvia is the more comprehensive, and objectively better, article but there is a case that they cover different topics and so can coexist.

I would suggest there are 3 reasonable options:
 * 1) Leave both articles existing and aim to improve Clam with a focus on it as a common term
 * 2) Merge Clam into Bivalvia with a redirect and explanation in Bivalvia to welcome those redirected
 * 3) Merge Clam into Bivalvia but have them at Clam per WP:COMMON NAME

I hope this is not felt to be too hasty, and of course these are not the only options available. Best wishes |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see no benefit in the proposed merger and would choose option one. My interest in the article Bivalvia lies in the fact that it was the first article I brought to FA status back in 2012. Without wanting to take "ownership" of the article, I am not keen to see the content and wording that was worked out in a lengthy FA review process dragged down by incorporation of off-topic and less well referenced material. Then again, I am unsure what a "clam" is; true clams are apparently distinct from oysters, scallops, mussels and cockles. It does not seem correct to merge one sort of bivalve into the article Bivalvia which covers the whole class of molluscs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "Clam" is not a name for all bivalves, but for plain-shelled edible bivalves that the article rightly states are not the other edible bivalves such as oysters, mussels, and scallops. "Clam" is thus basically a culinary term, not a taxonomic one, and it does not extend to the whole of the Bivalvia. We should specialize Clam away from synonymy and towards its culinary usage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the rationals provided. "Clam" is a broad vernacular term used loosely for some bivalves, but is not synonymous with Bivalve.-- Kev  min  § 02:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not all bivalves are clams. That the Wikipedia article is making the uncited claim that clam is a general term for bivalves doesn't make it so. Improve the article to better explain what clams are. The bivalve article is not the place to define "clam". Plantdrew (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree broadly with Chiswick Chap. "Clam" is not a taxonomic term, and it is a mistake to think it is a scientific or biological concept like a bivalve. Instead, it is a term which belongs to common or everyday usage, with all the vagaries that entails. As such it should have its own article. It is widely used in fisheries, seafood marketing, and in culinary contexts. Its usage has a history which varies with both time and locality. Usage in say the United States can differ from usage in Britain, and countries with languages other than English do not necessarily have an equivalent term. There are parallels with terms like shrimp and prawn. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with Epipelagic. Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not entirely a culinary term, but I suspect there is an element of WP:ENGVAR here. Certainly in the UK the vast majority of bivalves consumed are marine mussels, with freshwater mussels and oysters trailing and "clams" behind them. There may be parts of one country in North America where clams are so locally dominant as to have become a generic term for all bivalves, but it's not true globally.Le Deluge (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022626/http://www.scsagr.com/upimg/2008530162135.pdf to http://www.scsagr.com/upimg/2008530162135.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410060304/http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/mussels/reprod.html to http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/mussels/reprod.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508031543/http://library.thinkquest.org/26602/diet.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/26602/diet.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317051507/http://www.world-archaeology.com/news/shell-tools-rewrite-australasian-prehistory/ to http://www.world-archaeology.com/news/shell-tools-rewrite-australasian-prehistory/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415133556/http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/zebra/zmis/zmishelp4/nervous_system_and_sense_organs.htm to http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/zebra/zmis/zmishelp4/nervous_system_and_sense_organs.htm
 * Added tag to http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2034/Pages%20455-460.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017015815/http://www.intelaquares.com/doc/7b.pdf to http://www.intelaquares.com/doc/7b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Bivalvia and Clam wiki article
Clam is the main English word for bivalve, so many bivalves are called clams and no one bats an eyelid, but so few are called mussels, oysters and scallops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Then the neological meaning of clams is purely biological/zoological and not what it means in Everyday usage or meant in the English language's past. What is the word that English people were calling bivalves before they used the term bivalve, it is obvious that the word bivalve came much later and no person that spoke Middle English would name a clam a bivalve. Before the emergence of biology as a science cephalopods were known as inkfish, there is no reason that anyone at that time used latin word for such and similar creatures, it is logical that people used anglicized words and that latin words amphisbaenians, cephalopods, echinoderms came much later. What do you expect for a person that spoke Middle English to call a bivalve? Before we got the modern meanings of what clams are? Do you really think a early modern person would call a clam a bivalve? Enlighten me please, how are bivalves different from clams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs)
 * People may mistakenly refer to all bivalves as "clams", but the article Clam covers just clams, which are found in multiple taxonomic groups within Bivalvia. The lead section of Clam discusses the differences between clams and other major groups of bivalves. It would not be appropriate to generalize all ~9,000 species of bivalves as clams when all of them are not called clams. – Rhinopias (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus has already been reached on this matter. Please read above. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Then the neological meaning of clams is purely biological/zoological and not what it means in Everyday usage or meant in the English language's past. Before the emergence of biology as a science cephalopods were known as inkfish, there is no reason that anyone at that time used latin word for such and similar creatures, it is logical that people used anglicized words and that latin words amphisbaenians, cephalopods, echinoderms came much later. What is the word that English people were calling bivalves before they used the term bivalve, it is obvious that the word bivalve came much later and no person that spoke Middle English would name a clam a bivalve. What do you expect for a person that spoke Middle English to call a bivalve? Before we got the modern meanings of what clams are? Do you really think a early modern person would call a clam a bivalve? Enlighten me please, how are bivalves different from clams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs)
 * The words clam, oyster, cockle, scallop and mussel are all several hundred years old. I don't see where the word clam was ever used to apply to all of them, and how, even if that were the case, why they should be called that now. and of course, as clam now refers to only some bivalves, and not all of them, calling all of them clams would simply add to the confusion. Bivalvia, meanwhile, is reasonably easy to spell, pronounce and define. What's the problem? There's a strong feeling of "I don't like it" in what you say. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition of a clam
Is the definition of a clam a edible bivalve?

Are cockles, mussels oysters and scallops clams because they are edible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs)
 * Did you look at the clam article at all? and for the third time at least, sign your posts!-- Kev min  § 20:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gyrkin, I see that you are addressing the same issue from a different angle, but three different people have told you the two articles are not going to be merged. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't ask for merging, you misread my intentions. I am now asking a different question.

Are cockles, mussels, oysters and scallops a type of clam?

What I am precisely asking if clams are a type of bivalve, which they are, does that mean that cockles, mussels, oysters and scallops are a subset of clams because they are edible bivalves. AND FROM WHAT I READ, THE DEFINITION OF A CLAM SEEMS TO BE A EDIBLE BIVALVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your persistent refusal to sign your comments suggests you may prefer being combative rather than wanting clarification. Bivalvia is a scientific term. It is a taxonomic group of biological organisms, scientifically grouped on the basis of shared characteristics. Individual members of this group are called bivalves. These terms belong to scientific language and their use is controlled through scientific consensus. On the other hand, the term "clam" belongs to ordinary everyday language. It is a common name and not a scientific name, a vernacular or colloquial term which lacks the formal definition of a scientific term such as Bivalvia. It is not a taxon, but a term of convenience with little circumscriptional significance. As such, it is term whose use can change over time, and can also vary regionally so it means one thing in Britain and something a bit different in the USA. Within a given locality, different groups of people can also use the term somewhat differently. Chefs sometimes use the term clam differently from commercial fishermen. Roughly, if a bivalve is commercially important because people eat it, then it tends to be called a clam. But that doesn't mean you can define a clam as an edible bivalve, because most bivalves are edible and most are not called clams. The usage of the term varies regionally because the availability of bivalves depends on where you live in the world. Also, for cultural and historical reasons, different regions prefer eating some bivalves to others. Yet other variations occur just because common language usage can be perverse or capricious. That's why there is no simple answer to "what is a clam?". There is no straightforward definition like there is for a bivalve. It is more a matter of determining how the word clam is used in practice. And that can vary with time, place, and who is using it. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807040513/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/articles/reviews/9709.asp to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/articles/reviews/9709.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807021625/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/articles/y1989/8903_jones.asp to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/articles/y1989/8903_jones.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bivalvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6MTvviJHk?url=http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=s_hsh_top%2Fs_hsh_s3_biodiv%2Fs_hsh_s3_extreme to http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=s_hsh_top%2Fs_hsh_s3_biodiv%2Fs_hsh_s3_extreme
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6MTvviJHk?url=http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=s_hsh_top%2Fs_hsh_s3_biodiv%2Fs_hsh_s3_extreme to http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=s_hsh_top%2Fs_hsh_s3_biodiv%2Fs_hsh_s3_extreme

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I want a better explanation of the left-and-right thing
I want to put a sentence   in the first paragraph something like Evolutionarily speaking, this means that the animals lie on their side. I remember it took me quite a while to understand what was going on when I read in the article about brachiopods that the shells of brachiopods are historically top-and-bottom but bivalves have left-and-right. I thought maybe there was some animal somewhere that was like a sideways clam that I just didnt know about because they lived at  the bottom of the sea. I would add this myself but I want to make sure there is not some tiny exception out there that would make my sentence scientifically inaccurate. Even so, I could add it with "most" or say "animals such as clams", etc. Any suggestions? 12:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Unionacea?
We have a suspicious red link Unionacea. No entry in Wikidata. It may be a suborder (compare eg Corbiculacea)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some sources call it a superfamily (and it may also be spelled "Unionaceae"). In another group of molluscs (Nautiloids), superfamilies ending in -aceae are apparently still being used (see e.g. Tainocerataceae), but this seems to be obsolete in bivalves. I don't think there's any harm in unlinking Unionacea from the one article where it is linked. Plantdrew (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * & Actually Nautiloids use -oidea for the superfamilies, per the last update to the Treatise.-- Kev  min  § 19:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy and extant bivalves
I think these two sections should be merged, and taxonomies section showed before human use. What do you think? Theklan (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)